On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:33:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 05:56:59PM -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> >> I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I wonder if we really need
> >> *more* syntax variants for declaring set-returning functions. The
> >> existing patchwork of features is confusing enough as it is...
> > The way we declare set-returning functions ranges from odd to
> > byzantine. A clear, easy-to-understand syntax (even if it's just
> > sugar over something else) like Pavel's would go a long way toward
> > getting developers actually to use them.
> Apparently, whether the syntax is byzantine or not is in the eye of
> the beholder. I find the TABLE() syntax to be *less* clear.
Perhaps, but I can see explaining it to my over-busy-non-doc-reading
developers much more easily than the existing choices. Of course then
they will all want to write set returning functions, so I may end up
David Gould daveg(at)sonic(dot)net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869
If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2008-06-12 22:27:02|
|Subject: Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-06-12 19:21:40|
|Subject: Re: SQL: table function support|